A disputed property deed can leave an estate fighting to recover land years after its owner’s death, particularly when the signature authorising the original transfer is alleged to be forged. In Texas, the estate of a deceased doctor challenged a 2009 property transfer, claiming that a man who controlled the company receiving the land had forged the owner’s signature. The dispute later involved another company that purchased the property and sought to defend its ownership.In a November 6, 2026, memorandum opinion available on Justia, the Texas First Court of Appeals ruled that the estate could withdraw its claims against the later buyer, Malachite Venture Corporation. The court reversed the trial court’s refusal to recognise the withdrawal and its subsequent decision granting summary judgment to the buyer on the estate’s claims. The appeals court held that the estate had filed its notice of nonsuit before judgment was entered and that the withdrawal did not prevent the buyer from pursuing any independent claims for affirmative relief.
How the disputed property transfer began
The case concerned land originally conveyed to Shiva Investment Group in 1992. In 2009, a deed purported to transfer the property from Shiva Investment Group to The 2525 Brothers, L.P. The document carried the signature of Dr. R.K. Dhingra, who had signed on behalf of the investment group. However, Dhingra’s estate later alleged that the signature was forged by David Scheffler, who controlled The 2525 Brothers. In 2010, the company transferred the property to Malachite Venture Corporation, making it the subsequent buyer in the disputed chain of ownership.After Dhingra died, his estate filed a lawsuit challenging the transaction and seeking to recover the property. It argued that because the 2009 deed was fraudulent, the subsequent transfer could not give Malachite valid ownership. The dispute also involved criminal proceedings against Scheffler. He was charged with securing the execution of documents by deception in connection with the disputed transaction. He was initially placed on deferred adjudication but was later adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Why the estate sought to withdraw its claims
During the property litigation, Shiva Investment Group executed a special warranty deed in 2018, transferring its interest in the property to Dhingra’s estate. Malachite subsequently sought summary judgment against the estate. In its June 23, 2021, motion, the company argued that the estate could not maintain its title claims because neither Dhingra nor the estate owned the property when the original lawsuit was filed.Before the court could decide the summary judgment motion, however, the estate filed a notice of nonsuit, seeking to withdraw its claims against Malachite without prejudice. The withdrawal applied only to the estate’s claims against the later buyer. It did not seek to dismiss the claims against Scheffler or the other defendants, nor did it attempt to eliminate any independent claims Malachite had filed.Malachite objected, arguing that the estate was attempting to avoid an unfavourable judgment after years of litigation. It also maintained that allowing the withdrawal would interfere with its ability to pursue its own counterclaims and cross-claims. The trial court accepted the objections, refused to recognise the nonsuit and subsequently granted summary judgment in Malachite’s favour.
Why the appeals court overturned the decision
The estate challenged the trial court’s decision, arguing that Texas law allowed it to withdraw its claims before a final judgment was entered. The appeals court examined Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 162 and 163. Rule 162 generally allows a plaintiff to take a nonsuit before introducing all its evidence at trial, except rebuttal evidence. The nonsuit becomes effective when the notice is filed and does not require judicial approval. Rule 163 also allows a plaintiff involved in a case with multiple defendants to dismiss its claims against one defendant, provided the withdrawal does not prejudice another party.The appeals court found that the estate had filed its notice before the trial court issued its summary judgment. Therefore, the withdrawal had already taken effect, and the lower court could no longer decide the merits of those particular claims. The judges also rejected the argument that the estate’s decision to withdraw was automatically improper because it might have wanted to avoid an unfavourable ruling. A plaintiff’s possible motivation does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise permissible nonsuit.
Why Malachite’s objections were rejected
The appeals court also considered whether withdrawing the estate’s claims would unfairly harm Malachite. It explained that any counterclaims or cross-claims seeking independent affirmative relief would survive the nonsuit. The court noted that Malachite’s pleadings were not included in the appellate record, but found that the withdrawal did not deprive the company of its right to pursue any such claims.The company could also pursue its interests in the remaining litigation involving Scheffler and the other defendants. The court found no sufficient evidence that the withdrawal increased Malachite’s liability, removed a legal defence or deprived it of an opportunity to pursue its claims. Consequently, the requirements for allowing the nonsuit were satisfied, and the trial court had no adequate basis to refuse it.
What happens next
In its November 6, 2026, decision, the Texas First Court of Appeals reversed the orders refusing the estate’s nonsuit and granting summary judgment to Malachite on the withdrawn claims. It remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling does not determine whether the 2009 deed was forged or establish who ultimately owns the disputed property. It also does not eliminate any independent claims for affirmative relief that Malachite had properly pleaded against the estate or other parties.Overall, the decision clarifies that a plaintiff in Texas generally retains the right to withdraw its claims before judgment, even after years of litigation. A defendant’s objection or concern about an unfavourable outcome does not automatically prevent that withdrawal, although any independent claims and available legal remedies can continue.
